March 31, 2013

Driscoll is talking about the photo of Obama that happens to have a portrait of George Washington in the background, but that Drudge page he links to begins with a very striking picture of the new Pope, lying prone — with the quote "Respond to evil with good"— and a big closeup of a cute baby getting a spoonful of mush — with the headline "Putin Orders Ban on Adoptions By Foreign Gay Couples."

Graphically, the horizontality of the Pope corresponds to the spoon, but if that's expressing an analogy, it could be: 1. The Pope's advice is pap, 2. The Pope's advice is the simple nourishment that Putin would take from helpless babies, or 3. Sexual perversion (is the Pope humping the rug and what does Putin think gay people put in a baby's mouth?!!!).

ADDED: Sorry that #3 is inflammatory, but I'm just being honest about the alternative interpretations of the imagery. #3 is especially justified by the phallic imagery on either side of the Obama photo. Atop the left column, there's an upright microphone (representing the newly dead record producer Phil Ramone), and atop the right column there's Kim Jong-un (and another N. Korean) aggressively pointing fingers or guns or some sort of metal cylinders.

The gay marriage thing seems to have really gotten in her head and made her loopy. I can't think of any other issue in almost ten years of reading this blog where she's been this shrill and hysterical. Maybe occasionally back in the "you owe me an apology" days, but nothing this sustained. She's become the female Andrew Sullivan!

I can't think of any other issue in almost ten years of reading this blog where she's been this shrill and hysterical.

Lol. It's the anti-gay (note that I didn't write "anti gay marriage") assholes that have been shrill and hysterical this past week. Althouse has just been playing you, and getting you guys to write the stupidest, whiny-est, vilest things and completely beclowning yourselves.

Was #3 inflammatory? I don't feel inflamed. The glory of the risen Christ is not threatened by mortal mockery nor is the authority of God to judge our actions and words diminished by the crude misuse of his eternal Word.

Having said that, one might have hoped for a greater measure of restraint out of respect toward those of us who celebrate this holiest of Christian Days.

Do you ever wonder if the weird and slightly nauseating propensity of Althouse to see sexual images in practically everything, might not have had some sort of effect on her son's homosexuality. Perhaps being raised in a home environment stewing in sexual innuendo could have some bearing?

Sorry if that was inflammatory. Not quite as bad as thinking the Pope is humping a rug but....still....just being honest about alternate interpretations of why someone would be homosexual.

Althouse has just been playing you, and getting you guys to write the stupidest, whiny-est, vilest things and completely beclowning yourselves.

Palladian, that's terribly cynical, and I hope it's not true although I grant that it may be. Why would Althouse play such damaging and dishonorable mind games?

At any rate, I've had enough for a while. I'm going to go take off my Easter dress, pray the rosary, lie down for a catnap, steal some of my kids' Easter candy, and cook ham and potatoes later. Y'all take care and God bless you every one on this glorious Resurrection Day.

"Since the S.&P. 500 first reached its current level, in March 2000, the mad money printers at the Federal Reserve have expanded their balance sheet sixfold (to $3.2 trillion from $500 billion). Yet during that stretch, economic output has grown by an average of 1.7 percent a year (the slowest since the Civil War); real business investment has crawled forward at only 0.8 percent per year; and the payroll job count has crept up at a negligible 0.1 percent annually. Real median family income growth has dropped 8 percent, and the number of full-time middle class jobs, 6 percent. The real net worth of the “bottom” 90 percent has dropped by one-fourth. The number of food stamp and disability aid recipients has more than doubled, to 59 million, about one in five Americans."

Our government has been doing to us--in slow motion--what has just happened to the people of Cyprus overnight.

DBQ as far as I can remember the Professor does not bring her son into the blog nor does her son comment at his mother's blog. As he is not a public person I believe that decency would call us to leave him out of this in any manner.

Obviously, Drudge is putting images together in an intentional way. There's clearly a challenge that has been made by an author of images to interpret these images.

I came up with 3 ideas to try to cover the possibilities. If I could have thought of more I would have included them.

Does anyone deny that Drudge is doing this?

If you criticize me, please be clear about why. These are the options I see:

1. Drudge is not really trying to say anything with his image juxtapositions. (I think this is hard to believe and a willfully dumb thing to think.)

2. You think I've included an option that shouldn't even be in the options. (Why not?!)

3. You think I've left out some options. (Fine. Add options.)

4. You think that interpreting Drudge juxtapositions isn't a worthy activity. (You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree and I would invite you to simply skip the post if that's your problem. I think it's worth doing because: 1. The Drudge page is influential and seen by many and part of our culture, even it it's a lowly form of art/journalism, 2. It's amusing to people like me who are interested in graphic design, metaphor, humor, and forms of meaning.)

1. Drudge is not really trying to say anything with his image juxtapositions. (I think this is hard to believe and a willfully dumb thing to think.)

I think in an old post an Ad guy discussed this, and he said it's a natural thing to start playing around with images in this way. Whether Drudge is doing this to make a point, or for his own personal interests is hard to say.

However, given the interest, I would guess it adds to the Drudge mystique, especially assuming the guy is saying something really meaningful. Put a bunch of things together, and intelligent people will find meaning in it. That's what people do.

Some even make a living on interpreting the tea leaves.

I understand some students of English write doctoral thesis on the gibberish in the middle of "Waiting for Godot," for instance, even though it seems like stream of consciousness junk.